The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1887-03-02

opposed to this bill ever since it was intro
duced. He thought it was time to call
halt on this class of legislation as had been
suggested.
Mr.. Cough SAID he didn't see that militia
bill was needed in this State at this time. If
there was necessity for bill of this kind,
it should be made so as to include all the
young men in the State. He was not in
favor of movement tc pass a bill TO oblige
lot Of boys who merely wanted to parade
the streets of the city.
Mr.. Brisnt said there was a misunder-
standing as to the demand that this bill be
passed. He thought Indiana could do no
less than make this appropriation. He said
that he had received petitions from his con-
stituents asking for the passage of the bill.
Mr.. Weyand said that this was an agricult-
ural State and not military community. 1t
was not like Louisiana and other States on
the sea-board which might require protec-
tion. In view of the fact that the benevo-
lent institutions must be provided for, he
did not believe that they ought to pass the
bill at this time.
Mr.. Nolin made the closing argument in
favor of the bill and moved the previous
question which was seconded.
Mr.. Cox, in explaining his vote, said he
believed that this was a peace-loving State,
but back of all the law was the power of en-
forcing that law. AS at present constituted
only the rich could belong TO the military
companies but if this bill was passed the
humblest citizen who worked for a living
could become a member.
Mr.. Dickerson read from manuscript few
remarks showing that the Knights of Labor
were organized by peaceful methods, and
that their motto was the ballot, not the bull
let.
Mr.. Miller said his early religious training
was against shedding blood, and about the
time the rebellion broke out it took all the
80
have these dangerous forces organized all
around Us it was necessary to have these
military forces, and for that reason he
would vote aye.
The bill passed by ayes, 81; nays, IL.
Mr.. Niblack's Appellate Court bill came
up as unfinished business. The author of
the bill briefly explained its provisions.
On the call of the roll there were several
explanations made, Mr.. Gardiner saying
that he did not believe in having two Su-
preme Courts and that the Committee on the
Judiciary had prepared a better bill. The
vote resulted 81 ayes and 80 nays.
Mr.. Harrell moved that the Senate be no
titled of the passage OF the bill.
The Speaker promptly decided that the
motion was out of order.
Mr.. Kellison called up his bill concerning
changes of venue. The proposed law makes
it the duty of the Clerk of the Court to in-
form the Judge to whom the change is taken.
In choosing Judge three names shall be
taken, the defendant to strike off one the
plaintiff one, and the remaining name to be
that of the Judge before whom the case is to
be tried. These and other features were
gwen as reasons why the bill should pass.
The bill was passed by so yeas to 0 nays.
Mr.. Clusters bill concerning highways and
the duties of road supervisors was called up.
Mr.. Buckles moved to amend the rules to
make the hour OF meeting 10 o'clock instead
| of 1920 O'Clock.
Mr.. Roberts moved as an amendment that
the hour be made 8 o'clock instead. Mr..
Roberts said that they were now nearing the
| end of an important session and there should
| be more time for the reading of bills.
Mr. Van Slyke moved that in order to ac-
| commodate those who had become so sud
| denly industrious that the hour be changed
to o'clock.
Mr. Montgomery said that as the present
hour was a compromise between the Others
suggested he moved that the resolution and
amendments be laid on the table. This was
adopted and the House adjourned.